Gun Control: Using Threats To Get What We Want


How many of us in our daily lives threaten others with violence to get them to comply with our wishes?  I reckon that the majority of us don’t regularly threaten people.  There is a logical reason for this; when we threaten people we burn social bridges.  Cooperative arrangements between humans are necessary in order for people to enjoy a high standard of living.  If you threaten your hairstylist, the chances are pretty good that they aren’t going to cut your hair again no matter how much you pay.  If you threaten enough people, your reputation will precede you and people will go out of their way to avoid you.  Of course, there are laws against threatening people as well, but even without laws, common sense tells us that the use of violent threats to get what we want is counterproductive.  Being cast out of society is arguably a worse punishment than prison.

While it is clear that most of us don’t run around threatening people in our daily lives, I find it odd that so many of us are quick to cheer violent threats made by their elected representatives.  Recently there has been a lot of talk about gun control.  The advocates of gun control say we need it to “curb gun violence.”   To me, the whole argument about gun control is logically ridiculous.  Just how do these advocates of gun control propose to enforce their edicts upon the rest of society?  Are they planning to threaten people with guns to get them to comply?  Obviously the answer must be yes.

From a logical perspective, the real argument that the gun control advocates are making is that, there’s nothing wrong with guns.  In fact, the gun control advocates want them to be employed against the citizenry by the state on a rather grandiose level.  The only problems with guns, from their perspective, is that people who are not officially sanctioned by the state have them.

It’s almost hilarious in a certain context.  The gun control advocates want to live in a world where the group of humans most responsible for mass killing and torture have all of the weapons, while the people who are subject to their edicts have none.  The state, as an institutionalized collection of humans, has been responsible for two world wars, endless mass genocides, the nuclear destruction of two cities, terrorizing the global population for decades with the threat of a nuclear holocaust, imprisoning tens of millions for smoking various plant products, taking half of people’s earned wealth through threats of force, locking up Asian citizens during a war because they looked different, conscripting those who did not pursue a college degree into fighting against their will in a foreign war of aggression and the enslavement of various entire races of people.

Fascinating.  Revolting.  Irritating.

Do the people advocating gun control really believe that the state is filled with angelic beings?  That the state of yesteryear was bad, but today things are different?  No, I do not believe they are so naive.  They may not admit it consciously, but the real reason that people advocate for gun control is because they don’t want anyone to challenge the state’s authority.  The gun is a power equalizer.  Those serfs who feel the state is their benefactor, for whatever reason, are far more apt to view any challenge to its power and authority with contempt.  The arguments that gun control will lead to reduced gun violence are a sideshow, because clearly the state is going to have to use a lot of threats against a lot of people to impose such laws.  However, the advocates of gun control obviously don’t care about that kind of violence, they only care about the violence their fellow serfs engage in against each other.

Further, when gun control advocates make their statistical arguments in favor of gun control, they focus exclusively on gun statistics.  While this may make sense from their perspective, it is logically ridiculous given their line of reasoning.  Does it matter if a person is murdered with a blunt object or a gun?  Does it matter if a person is robbed at knife point or at gun point?  Clearly, by their arguments, the gun control advocates must think that it does!  Such arguments are bankrupt of logic and reason.

  • Xizang

    Very well said. And what I’m thinking about the recent shootings is, it’s crazy people who have been doing all the killing. Blaming guns for what crazy people do with them is like blaming cars and trucks for what drunk drivers do with them. Come on, people. It’s the crazy people that’s the problem.

    Besides that, I’m willing to give up my Second Amendment rights after everyone else first gives up their First Amendment rights. And their Fifth Amendment rights, etc. etc.

  • FourYearPuma

    I was really hoping to find a home on the Libertarian side of the fence, but articles like this make me feel that I have no hopes of finding that elusive political home. The tired simile that the author and every other short sighted gun advocate makes, the one about banning forks and cars and bats, just reeks of desperation and a lack of logic. And then this… ” gun control advocates want them to be employed against the citizenry by the state on a rather grandiose level.” Scare tactics. Nice. I was hoping to find higher standards on the Libertarian side of the fence. – proud but sensible gun owner.

    • Sorry to disappoint.

      Tell me, do you think gun control would be successful if the state didn’t use the threat of guns to enforce it?

    • Reverend Draco

      Funny that you should end your scree with “proud but sensible,” when there was nothing in the prior sentences which demonstrated a lick of sense.

      How does comparing dead with dead reek of desperation and a lack of logic? Dead is dead, whether the tool used is a gun, a car, or an atomic bomb. You need to look beyond the tool, to the people using them – as any rational, sensible, person would do.

    • Roger Young

      A “political home?” You obviously don’t understand libertarianism. Libertarians don’t HAVE politics. That’s how they’re different. Libertarians base their opinions on reason, logic, and the sound principles of the Non-Aggression Principle and property rights. Politics are the antithesis of that approach. Politics is violence and coercion.

    • Calling something “scare tactics” doesn’t make it illegitimate. Gun “control” advocates want force used against you and me if we own things they don’t like Pointing this out is no more a “scare tactic” than pointing out that certain religious groups want force used against you and me if we say things they don’t like.

  • Noteven

    So the threats stemming from libertarians and other gun advocates that civil war is coming and that violent over throw of the government is coming falls where in this equation?

    • Reverend Draco

      Nobody is “threatening” civil war – they’re warning of a possible, perhaps even likely, response to decades of abuse – it’s warning of The Burning Bed on a much larger scale. Even the most mild-mannered will grow a pair when cornered.

      The sad thing is, the Libertarians are trying to protect you & your rights as well as theirs – and you don’t even care. . . You’re more than willing to give up your right to self-defense to a group of people with a proven track record of violence and abuse – Stockholm Syndrome at it’s worst.

      I pity you.

    • pjb1

      Actually, this is a sensible question. The answer is that “Do X or we will kill you,” is fundamentally different than “Leave us alone or we will kill you.” The first is a threat of aggressive violence; the second is a threat of defensive violence. Defensive violence is morally permissible – even the Dalia Lama says so. Aggressive violence is not.

    • FEEuser

      WHO is threatening civil war? I know of no such threats being made by any Libertarians anywhere, and I read and blog on nearly all the Libertarian websites.

      The only threats that I know about are the ones coming from the Obama administration and his New World Order partners in crime.

      Each day brings a new “mandate” from the feds which carries an implied threat of violence against us if we don’t do what we are told.

      These mandates cover practically every aspect of daily life, from light bulbs to toilets, from GPS in our cars to gun control, and they are making civilization impossible.

      Does living in a police state appeal to you? Or, are you one of these people who think that “American exceptionalism” will somehow save us?

      Don’t you think Libertarian complaints against all this intimidation and threats are legitimate?

      Sounds as if you needed to read some Libertarian literature. Gentle words of reason are what you will find therein, not bellicose rhetoric. Please give it a try.

  • pjb1

    I think there are people in this world who are naturally submissive, who actually prefer to grovel at the feet of a ruler. If so, they must hate to look on others who refuse to submit, because it casts their own actions in such a bad light. They hate so much that they clearly don’t care if the obstinate ones are all killed – in fact they want it, despite all the professed concerns about wanting to reduce violence. The reality is that the submissive are as violent as anybody else, but they enjoy their violence vicariously, not caring to risk their own hides to carry it out.

    • A_Tyrant’s_Nightmare

      I agree. I think the majority of people are that way unfortunately though especially, here in America. It’s easier to be the sheep. You don’t have to make any choices. Nothing is your fault. Nobody else will get ahead of you because they aren’t doing anything either. Unless someone does get ahead of you and then it is because of something you should have had as well and therefore they did not earn it. Welcome to America circa 2013.

      I look through these posts here on this site and see the sheep bleating their dissatisfaction at anyone who would dare stand up. I for one am no longer willing to fight for those who are sheep. You want to be a nice little slave. So be it. Go sit down, shut your mouth and I promise…we will get to you.

  • Pingback: Articles for Sunday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • Pingback: Awww...I got banned from One Million Moms 4 Gun Control... - Page 6()

  • Alex K

    Former advocates for Gun Control “Hitler, Stalin, Mao”… In total about 150 million plus deaths attributable between them. American society is decaying, but that has nothing to do with guns. More to do with, hard drugs, violent video games, pornography and a myriad of other filth that passes for popular culture. Oddly enough the Gun Control patsies never seem to mention the fact that in the USA the states with the greatest number of guns per capita of citizenry, also have the lowest murder rates. Time to arm the guards at schools – that is how you save lives. The criminals and psychotics will always find a way to murder and rob and steal, with or without guns!